REMEMBER THE 16 WORDS?

Remember the whole brou-ha over the 16 words in the State of the Union?

Remember Amb. Joe Wilson's indignant claims that he told the administration that there wasn't anything to suggestions that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger?

Two things have always bothered me about that whole episode.

First: by Wilson's own account his fact finding trip consisted of his sitting around the hotel pool, drinking tea with people (I'm not engaging in hyperbole here, stick with me for a bit) and asking them if they knew anything about illicit trafficking in uranium. Not only was the whole thing right out in the open, he was apparently quite open about the question. "Hey, you haven't been involved in illegally selling the Iraqis anything? like, say, oh, I don't know, uranium. Have you?" And anyone really thought that was a comprehensive investigation into what had happened or not happened in Niger?

Second, although it's clear that certain documentation of uranium deals with Niger had been forged, the British have never backed down (and remember, those 16 words were sourced to British intelligence.) Might it not be the case that they knew something Joe Wilson didn't?

Given those two concerns I was quite interested in reading what Greg Djerejian had to say about the latest on the whole matter, and I suspect you will be too.

(via Instapundit)

The question I have is: will this reopening of the issue be picked up by any other outlets?

Comments

[Michael B]

It's known as being intellectually incurious and wilfully, even obdurately self-blinded in the mold of a Michael Moore or any number of other commentators, Hollywood half-wits, etc.

As indicated, it's been well known, if not very thoroughly published in the MSM, that the British have stuck to their story even in the face of the obviously forged Niger documents. Hence if the British stick with their story despite the forged quality of the published documents it can either mean the British intelligence service is dullishly stupid - or that there is in fact much more to the story that is either unknown (in terms of its open source accessibility) or at least unreported. All that seems fairly prima facie evident - unless of course one is in fact self-blinded - hence it does not require a Sherlock Holmesian intellect and attentiveness to minutia to see this. Yet, nonetheless, look at where we're at in terms of (seemingly) widely held perceptions about this very topic.

Mere cynicism though, certainly in a general sense, has to be avoided. One of the good things about analyses such as those provided herein, even when they are particularly trenchant or even cutting, is that they help direct an understanding and a corrective only at that which is at fault, not more generally.

[dauber]

Hmm. Are you saying I only catch the really obvious stuff?:)

[Michael B]

Just in case there's even a hint of seriousness in that question the answer is - most certainly not.

Belgravia has updated btw, with a note about a strong hint from Josh Marshall that a new twist, yet to be reported, is developing, and will - eventually - be reported. Marshall is rather cryptic, so we'll have to wait and see. In the past I've seen him come through with the goods on occasion, other times he's come up markedly short, so we shall see. What I more positively do not like about Marchall's cryptically suggestive note is the way he attempts to marginalize one of the two primary aspects of the FT piece, arguably the single most important aspect, it seems a bit disingenuous to do so, but ... developing.